KINGS OF ROME

Marshall High School

Mr. Cline

Western Civilization I: Ancient Foundations

Unit FOUR AA

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Roman culture was heavily influenced by the Greeks. This is not surprising since Greek colonists had begun settling in Italy around the 8th century BCE.

• By the time the Romans began their ascent to glory, southern Italy was already a massive Greek colony known to the Romans as Magna Graecia, or Great Greece.

• With such close contact with such an advanced civilization, it is no wonder that the Romans tried to emulate Greek culture. Roman poetry, architecture, language and art were all heavily influenced by their Greek predecessors. Romans were heavily influenced by Greek culture.

• Nowhere is Greek cultural influence more apparent than in Roman myth and religion. • Almost the entire Roman pantheon of gods was borrowed from the

Greeks. Roman gods have the same familial relationships to one another, they share the same myths and control the same domains as their Greek counterparts - they simply have Roman names.

• These Roman names are easy to remember because the Romans named the planets after their gods.

Finally, like Greek religion, Roman religion was syncretic, meaning that it absorbed gods from other religions, either by matching them to their Roman counterparts, or by welcoming the new god into their city. Though conservative Romans might hold strictly to the customs of their ancestors, typical Roman citizens worshiped gods from cultures all over the empire. One of the most popular forms of international religion was the mystery cult, secret societies which claimed to reveal some mystic truth to their adherents. For centuries, Roman culture happily embraced all but the most offensive of these mystery cults. Yet one mystery cult, initially indistinguishable from the dozens in circulation, started spreading dangerous ideas of peace and love. These maniacs, who called themselves Christians, claimed to drink the blood of their savior and eat his flesh. Worse, they claimed that God did not care if you were poor. In fact, God would prefer it if you owned nothing but the clothes on your back. Worse still, instead of playing nice with the other religions, these Christians denied the existence of any god but their own. These ideas threatened to undermine the very foundations of Roman religion, if not Roman civilization. Orgies the Romans could handle. Black magic? No problem! Ceremonial castration? As long as you keep it to yourself. But peace and love were simply too much for the Romans to stomach! From an economic perspective, many Roman aristocratic families owed much of their prestige and fortunes to the control of traditional Roman religious institutions. So, in a bout of religious conservatism (unusual for the cosmopolitan Romans), they set about repressing Christianity, intent on stamping it out. This backfired horribly. The very persecution of such a great empire against such a small religion granted the Christians legitimacy that most other mystery cults lacked. In the end, the Greco-Roman pantheon, which had survived and expanded for nearly 2,000 years, was effectively wiped from the earth by the victorious Christians. Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire. Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold. The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble. Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire. Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north. But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north. So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Ouranos, the Greek word for the 'sky', became Uranus.

• His son, Chronos, who ruled the Titans, was renamed Saturn.

• Zeus Pater, father Zeus became Jupiter (also known as Jove).

• Poseidon, god of the sea, became Neptune.

• Hades of the underworld was renamed Pluto.

• Aphrodite, the goddess of love, was now Venus.

• Swift Hermes, the messenger, became Mercury.

• And warlike Ares took on the Roman name Mars.

• Of course, the Greeks had more gods than planets. Not to be outdone, the Romans copied the rest of the Greek pantheon as well.

• Hera, Zeus' wife, became Juno.

favor those who could offer them the most and paid little attention to the common man, much to the relief of the common man. Like the Greeks, the Romans bartered with their Also like the Greeks, the Romans were big fans of prophecy - whether it came from oracles, mumbled by heavily drugged women, from observing the heavens (astrology), from watching birds in flight (augury), from reading the entrails of sacrificed animals (haruspicy) or even from finding messages in tongues of flame (pyromancy). Whatever the method, the Roman's used prophecy to ascertain whether one god or another approved of a given course of action. The Romans seem to have taken such things very seriously. Divine approval was sought after in affairs ranging from opening a business to invading a country. Roman Religious Tolerance and Intolerance Finally, like Greek religion, Roman religion was syncretic, meaning that it absorbed gods from other religions, either by matching them to their Roman counterparts, or by welcoming the new god into their city. Though conservative Romans might hold strictly to the customs of their ancestors, typical Roman citizens worshiped gods from cultures all over the empire. One of the most popular forms of international religion was the mystery cult, secret societies which claimed to reveal some mystic truth to their adherents. For centuries, Roman culture happily embraced all but the most offensive of these mystery cults. Yet one mystery cult, initially indistinguishable from the dozens in circulation, started spreading dangerous ideas of peace and love. These maniacs, who called themselves Christians, claimed to drink the blood of their savior and eat his flesh. Worse, they claimed that God did not care if you were poor. In fact, God would prefer it if you owned nothing but the clothes on your back. Worse still, instead of playing nice with the other religions, these Christians denied the existence of any god but their own. These ideas threatened to undermine the very foundations of Roman religion, if not Roman civilization. Orgies the Romans could handle. Black magic? No problem! Ceremonial castration? As long as you keep it to yourself. But peace and love were simply too much for the Romans to stomach! From an economic perspective, many Roman aristocratic families owed much of their prestige and fortunes to the control of traditional Roman religious institutions. So, in a bout of religious conservatism (unusual for the cosmopolitan Romans), they set about repressing Christianity, intent on stamping it out. This backfired horribly. The very persecution of such a great empire against such a small religion granted the Christians legitimacy that most other mystery cults lacked. In the end, the Greco-Roman pantheon, which had survived and expanded for nearly 2,000 years, was effectively wiped from the earth by the victorious Christians. Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire. Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold. The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble. Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire. Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north. But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north. So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Demeter, the goddess of harvest and fertility, was renamed Ceres (the Latin word for grain).

• The Twins Apollo, the prophetic healer, and Artemis, the virgin

goddess of the wild, became Phoebus and Diana and were associated with the sun and moon respectively.

• Athena, goddess of wisdom, became Minerva.

• Dionysus, the god of wine, dancing and revelry, was renamed

Bacchus, and was also called Liber by the Romans.

• Finally, Hephaistos, the smith god, became Vulcan.

• Indeed, the only uniquely Roman God is Janus, the god of beginnings and endings. This was once the domain of Artemis, but I suppose the Romans thought Artemis had enough on her hands. It's from Janus that we get the name of the first month, January.

Differences in Roman and Greek Culture Despite this borrowing, the Roman gods were not exact copies of their Greek counterparts. The Romans fostered a very different culture from the Greeks. Where Greek culture was focused on beauty and intelligence, the principal values of Roman culture were warlike, practical and undeniably male-dominated. These differences expressed themselves in Roman religion. One need only compare Ares (the Greek god of war) to Mars (the Roman god of war) to see how different the Greek and Roman religions were. Ares was the most hated of the Greek gods; even his fellow gods hated him. Ares had no temples. On the occasion that a Greek had to make a sacrifice to Ares, the prescribed victim was a puppy. For that is what war was to a Greek - war takes the flower of youth, with all its potential, and butchers it. Compare this to Mars. Mars had temples all over Rome and at least a shrine in nearly every Roman colony. The temple of Mars the Avenger was bested only by the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. And, Mars did not have to content himself with puppies, no sir. At Rome, Mars could look forward to hundreds of cattle being sacrificed to him each year at festivals on the field of Mars. And abroad, Roman soldiers wore the color of Mars - red - and offered him the blood of their enemies on the battle field. With the Roman Army almost constantly deployed for the better part of a thousand years, Mars must have grown fat indeed. Similarities in Roman and Greek Culture Still, there are far more similarities than differences between Greek and Roman religion. Like the Greeks, the Romans believed every mountain, every lake, every river, every crossroad, every province, every town and every family had its own minor patron deity with its own rituals and its own myths. Yet, all of these rituals and myths tied into the common Greco-Roman mythology for legitimacy. Also like the Greeks, the Romans dealt with their gods like two men bartering at the market. If you give me A, I will give you B. Naturally, the gods were thought to favor those who could offer them the most and paid little attention to the common man, much to the relief of the common man. Like the Greeks, the Romans bartered with their Also like the Greeks, the Romans were big fans of prophecy - whether it came from oracles, mumbled by heavily drugged women, from observing the heavens (astrology), from watching birds in flight (augury), from reading the entrails of sacrificed animals (haruspicy) or even from finding messages in tongues of flame (pyromancy). Whatever the method, the Roman's used prophecy to ascertain whether one god or another approved of a given course of action. The Romans seem to have taken such things very seriously. Divine approval was sought after in affairs ranging from opening a business to invading a country. Roman Religious Tolerance and Intolerance Finally, like Greek religion, Roman religion was syncretic, meaning that it absorbed gods from other religions, either by matching them to their Roman counterparts, or by welcoming the new god into their city. Though conservative Romans might hold strictly to the customs of their ancestors, typical Roman citizens worshiped gods from cultures all over the empire. One of the most popular forms of international religion was the mystery cult, secret societies which claimed to reveal some mystic truth to their adherents. For centuries, Roman culture happily embraced all but the most offensive of these mystery cults. Yet one mystery cult, initially indistinguishable from the dozens in circulation, started spreading dangerous ideas of peace and love. These maniacs, who called themselves Christians, claimed to drink the blood of their savior and eat his flesh. Worse, they claimed that God did not care if you were poor. In fact, God would prefer it if you owned nothing but the clothes on your back. Worse still, instead of playing nice with the other religions, these Christians denied the existence of any god but their own. These ideas threatened to undermine the very foundations of Roman religion, if not Roman civilization. Orgies the Romans could handle. Black magic? No problem! Ceremonial castration? As long as you keep it to yourself. But peace and love were simply too much for the Romans to stomach! From an economic perspective, many Roman aristocratic families owed much of their prestige and fortunes to the control of traditional Roman religious institutions. So, in a bout of religious conservatism (unusual for the cosmopolitan Romans), they set about repressing Christianity, intent on stamping it out. This backfired horribly. The very persecution of such a great empire against such a small religion granted the Christians legitimacy that most other mystery cults lacked. In the end, the Greco-Roman pantheon, which had survived and expanded for nearly 2,000 years, was effectively wiped from the earth by the victorious Christians. Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire. Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold. The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble. Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire. Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north. But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north. So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Differences in Roman and Greek Culture

• Despite this borrowing, the Roman gods were not exact copies of their Greek counterparts. The Romans fostered a very different culture from the Greeks. • Where Greek culture was focused on beauty and intelligence, the

principal values of Roman culture were warlike, practical and undeniably male-dominated. These differences expressed themselves in Roman religion.

• One need only compare Ares (the Greek god of war) to Mars (the

Roman god of war) to see how different the Greek and Roman religions were. • Ares was the most hated of the Greek gods; even his fellow gods

hated him. Ares had no temples. On the occasion that a Greek had to make a sacrifice to Ares, the prescribed victim was a puppy.

• For that is what war was to a Greek - war takes the flower of youth, with all its potential, and butchers it.

Compare this to Mars. Mars had temples all over Rome and at least a shrine in nearly every Roman colony. The temple of Mars the Avenger was bested only by the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. And, Mars did not have to content himself with puppies, no sir. At Rome, Mars could look forward to hundreds of cattle being sacrificed to him each year at festivals on the field of Mars. And abroad, Roman soldiers wore the color of Mars - red - and offered him the blood of their enemies on the battle field. With the Roman Army almost constantly deployed for the better part of a thousand years, Mars must have grown fat indeed. Similarities in Roman and Greek Culture Still, there are far more similarities than differences between Greek and Roman religion. Like the Greeks, the Romans believed every mountain, every lake, every river, every crossroad, every province, every town and every family had its own minor patron deity with its own rituals and its own myths. Yet, all of these rituals and myths tied into the common Greco-Roman mythology for legitimacy. Also like the Greeks, the Romans dealt with their gods like two men bartering at the market. If you give me A, I will give you B. Naturally, the gods were thought to favor those who could offer them the most and paid little attention to the common man, much to the relief of the common man. Like the Greeks, the Romans bartered with their Also like the Greeks, the Romans were big fans of prophecy - whether it came from oracles, mumbled by heavily drugged women, from observing the heavens (astrology), from watching birds in flight (augury), from reading the entrails of sacrificed animals (haruspicy) or even from finding messages in tongues of flame (pyromancy). Whatever the method, the Roman's used prophecy to ascertain whether one god or another approved of a given course of action. The Romans seem to have taken such things very seriously. Divine approval was sought after in affairs ranging from opening a business to invading a country. Roman Religious Tolerance and Intolerance Finally, like Greek religion, Roman religion was syncretic, meaning that it absorbed gods from other religions, either by matching them to their Roman counterparts, or by welcoming the new god into their city. Though conservative Romans might hold strictly to the customs of their ancestors, typical Roman citizens worshiped gods from cultures all over the empire. One of the most popular forms of international religion was the mystery cult, secret societies which claimed to reveal some mystic truth to their adherents. For centuries, Roman culture happily embraced all but the most offensive of these mystery cults. Yet one mystery cult, initially indistinguishable from the dozens in circulation, started spreading dangerous ideas of peace and love. These maniacs, who called themselves Christians, claimed to drink the blood of their savior and eat his flesh. Worse, they claimed that God did not care if you were poor. In fact, God would prefer it if you owned nothing but the clothes on your back. Worse still, instead of playing nice with the other religions, these Christians denied the existence of any god but their own. These ideas threatened to undermine the very foundations of Roman religion, if not Roman civilization. Orgies the Romans could handle. Black magic? No problem! Ceremonial castration? As long as you keep it to yourself. But peace and love were simply too much for the Romans to stomach! From an economic perspective, many Roman aristocratic families owed much of their prestige and fortunes to the control of traditional Roman religious institutions. So, in a bout of religious conservatism (unusual for the cosmopolitan Romans), they set about repressing Christianity, intent on stamping it out. This backfired horribly. The very persecution of such a great empire against such a small religion granted the Christians legitimacy that most other mystery cults lacked. In the end, the Greco-Roman pantheon, which had survived and expanded for nearly 2,000 years, was effectively wiped from the earth by the victorious Christians. Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire. Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold. The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble. Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire. Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north. But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north. So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Differences in Roman and Greek Culture

• Compare this to Mars. • Mars had temples all over Rome and at least a shrine in nearly

every Roman colony.

• The temple of Mars the Avenger was bested only by the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

• And, Mars did not have to content himself with puppies, no sir. At Rome, Mars could look forward to hundreds of cattle being sacrificed to him each year at festivals on the field of Mars.

• And abroad, Roman soldiers wore the color of Mars - red - and offered him the blood of their enemies on the battle field. With the Roman Army almost constantly deployed for the better part of a thousand years, Mars must have grown fat indeed.

Similarities in Roman and Greek Culture Still, there are far more similarities than differences between Greek and Roman religion. Like the Greeks, the Romans believed every mountain, every lake, every river, every crossroad, every province, every town and every family had its own minor patron deity with its own rituals and its own myths. Yet, all of these rituals and myths tied into the common Greco-Roman mythology for legitimacy. Also like the Greeks, the Romans dealt with their gods like two men bartering at the market. If you give me A, I will give you B. Naturally, the gods were thought to favor those who could offer them the most and paid little attention to the common man, much to the relief of the common man. Like the Greeks, the Romans bartered with their Also like the Greeks, the Romans were big fans of prophecy - whether it came from oracles, mumbled by heavily drugged women, from observing the heavens (astrology), from watching birds in flight (augury), from reading the entrails of sacrificed animals (haruspicy) or even from finding messages in tongues of flame (pyromancy). Whatever the method, the Roman's used prophecy to ascertain whether one god or another approved of a given course of action. The Romans seem to have taken such things very seriously. Divine approval was sought after in affairs ranging from opening a business to invading a country. Roman Religious Tolerance and Intolerance Finally, like Greek religion, Roman religion was syncretic, meaning that it absorbed gods from other religions, either by matching them to their Roman counterparts, or by welcoming the new god into their city. Though conservative Romans might hold strictly to the customs of their ancestors, typical Roman citizens worshiped gods from cultures all over the empire. One of the most popular forms of international religion was the mystery cult, secret societies which claimed to reveal some mystic truth to their adherents. For centuries, Roman culture happily embraced all but the most offensive of these mystery cults. Yet one mystery cult, initially indistinguishable from the dozens in circulation, started spreading dangerous ideas of peace and love. These maniacs, who called themselves Christians, claimed to drink the blood of their savior and eat his flesh. Worse, they claimed that God did not care if you were poor. In fact, God would prefer it if you owned nothing but the clothes on your back. Worse still, instead of playing nice with the other religions, these Christians denied the existence of any god but their own. These ideas threatened to undermine the very foundations of Roman religion, if not Roman civilization. Orgies the Romans could handle. Black magic? No problem! Ceremonial castration? As long as you keep it to yourself. But peace and love were simply too much for the Romans to stomach! From an economic perspective, many Roman aristocratic families owed much of their prestige and fortunes to the control of traditional Roman religious institutions. So, in a bout of religious conservatism (unusual for the cosmopolitan Romans), they set about repressing Christianity, intent on stamping it out. This backfired horribly. The very persecution of such a great empire against such a small religion granted the Christians legitimacy that most other mystery cults lacked. In the end, the Greco-Roman pantheon, which had survived and expanded for nearly 2,000 years, was effectively wiped from the earth by the victorious Christians. Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire. Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold. The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble. Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire. Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north. But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north. So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Similarities in Roman and Greek Culture

• Still, there are far more similarities than differences between Greek and Roman religion. • Like the Greeks, the Romans believed every mountain, every lake,

every river, every crossroad, every province, every town and every family had its own minor patron deity with its own rituals and its own myths.

• Yet, all of these rituals and myths tied into the common Greco-Roman mythology for legitimacy.

• Also like the Greeks, the Romans dealt with their gods like two men

bartering at the market. • If you give me A, I will give you B.

• Naturally, the gods were thought to favor those who could offer them

the most and paid little attention to the common man, much to the relief of the common man.

• Also like the Greeks, the Romans were big fans of prophecy - whether it came from oracles, mumbled by heavily drugged women, from observing the heavens (astrology), from watching birds in flight (augury), from reading the entrails of sacrificed animals (haruspicy) or even from finding messages in tongues of flame (pyromancy). Whatever the method, the Roman's used prophecy to ascertain whether one god or another approved of a given course of action. The Romans seem to have taken such things very seriously. Divine approval was sought after in affairs ranging from opening a business to invading a country.

Roman Religious Tolerance and Intolerance Finally, like Greek religion, Roman religion was syncretic, meaning that it absorbed gods from other religions, either by matching them to their Roman counterparts, or by welcoming the new god into their city. Though conservative Romans might hold strictly to the customs of their ancestors, typical Roman citizens worshiped gods from cultures all over the empire. One of the most popular forms of international religion was the mystery cult, secret societies which claimed to reveal some mystic truth to their adherents. For centuries, Roman culture happily embraced all but the most offensive of these mystery cults. Yet one mystery cult, initially indistinguishable from the dozens in circulation, started spreading dangerous ideas of peace and love. These maniacs, who called themselves Christians, claimed to drink the blood of their savior and eat his flesh. Worse, they claimed that God did not care if you were poor. In fact, God would prefer it if you owned nothing but the clothes on your back. Worse still, instead of playing nice with the other religions, these Christians denied the existence of any god but their own. These ideas threatened to undermine the very foundations of Roman religion, if not Roman civilization. Orgies the Romans could handle. Black magic? No problem! Ceremonial castration? As long as you keep it to yourself. But peace and love were simply too much for the Romans to stomach! From an economic perspective, many Roman aristocratic families owed much of their prestige and fortunes to the control of traditional Roman religious institutions. So, in a bout of religious conservatism (unusual for the cosmopolitan Romans), they set about repressing Christianity, intent on stamping it out. This backfired horribly. The very persecution of such a great empire against such a small religion granted the Christians legitimacy that most other mystery cults lacked. In the end, the Greco-Roman pantheon, which had survived and expanded for nearly 2,000 years, was effectively wiped from the earth by the victorious Christians. Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire. Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold. The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble. Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire. Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north. But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north. So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Similarities in Roman and Greek Culture

• Also like the Greeks, the Romans were big fans of prophecy - whether it came from oracles, mumbled by heavily drugged women, from observing the heavens (astrology), from watching birds in flight (augury), from reading the entrails of sacrificed animals (haruspicy) or even from finding messages in tongues of flame (pyromancy).

• Whatever the method, the Roman's used prophecy to ascertain whether one god or another approved of a given course of action. The Romans seem to have taken such things very seriously. Divine approval was sought after in affairs ranging from opening a business to invading a country.

• Roman Religious Tolerance and Intolerance

• Finally, like Greek religion, Roman religion was syncretic, meaning

that it absorbed gods from other religions, either by matching them to their Roman counterparts, or by welcoming the new god into their city.

• Though conservative Romans might hold strictly to the customs of their ancestors, typical Roman citizens worshiped gods from cultures all over the empire. One of the most popular forms of international religion was the mystery cult, secret societies which claimed to reveal some mystic truth to their adherents.

For centuries, Roman culture happily embraced all but the most offensive of these mystery cults. Yet one mystery cult, initially indistinguishable from the dozens in circulation, started spreading dangerous ideas of peace and love. These maniacs, who called themselves Christians, claimed to drink the blood of their savior and eat his flesh. Worse, they claimed that God did not care if you were poor. In fact, God would prefer it if you owned nothing but the clothes on your back. Worse still, instead of playing nice with the other religions, these Christians denied the existence of any god but their own. These ideas threatened to undermine the very foundations of Roman religion, if not Roman civilization. Orgies the Romans could handle. Black magic? No problem! Ceremonial castration? As long as you keep it to yourself. But peace and love were simply too much for the Romans to stomach! From an economic perspective, many Roman aristocratic families owed much of their prestige and fortunes to the control of traditional Roman religious institutions. So, in a bout of religious conservatism (unusual for the cosmopolitan Romans), they set about repressing Christianity, intent on stamping it out. This backfired horribly. The very persecution of such a great empire against such a small religion granted the Christians legitimacy that most other mystery cults lacked. In the end, the Greco-Roman pantheon, which had survived and expanded for nearly 2,000 years, was effectively wiped from the earth by the victorious Christians. Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire. Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold. The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble. Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire. Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north. But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north. So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Similarities in Roman and Greek Culture

• Roman Religious Tolerance and Intolerance

• Though conservative Romans might hold strictly to the customs of their ancestors, typical Roman citizens worshiped gods from cultures all over the empire. • One of the most popular forms of international religion was the

mystery cult, secret societies which claimed to reveal some mystic truth to their adherents.

• For centuries, Roman culture happily embraced all but the most

offensive of these mystery cults.

• Yet one mystery cult, initially indistinguishable from the dozens in circulation, started spreading dangerous ideas of peace and love. • These maniacs, who called themselves Christians, claimed

to drink the blood of their savior and eat his flesh.

• Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power.

Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Similarities in Roman and Greek Culture

• Roman Religious Tolerance and Intolerance

• Worse, they claimed that God did not care if you were poor. In fact, God would prefer it if you owned nothing but the clothes on your back.

• Worse still, instead of playing nice with the other religions, these Christians denied the existence of any god but their own.

• These ideas threatened to undermine the very foundations

of Roman religion, if not Roman civilization. Orgies the Romans could handle. Black magic? No problem! Ceremonial castration? As long as you keep it to yourself. But peace and love were simply too much for the Romans to stomach!

From an economic perspective, many Roman aristocratic families owed much of their prestige and fortunes to the control of traditional Roman religious institutions. So, in a bout of religious conservatism (unusual for the cosmopolitan Romans), they set about repressing Christianity, intent on stamping it out. This backfired horribly. The very persecution of such a great empire against such a small religion granted the Christians legitimacy that most other mystery cults lacked. In the end, the Greco-Roman pantheon, which had survived and expanded for nearly 2,000 years, was effectively wiped from the earth by the victorious Christians. Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire. Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold. The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble. Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire. Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north. But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north. So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Rome as Greater Greece

• Similarities in Roman and Greek Culture

• Roman Religious Tolerance and Intolerance

• From an economic perspective, many Roman aristocratic families owed much of their prestige and fortunes to the control of traditional Roman religious institutions.

• So, in a bout of religious conservatism (unusual for the cosmopolitan Romans), they set about repressing Christianity, intent on stamping it out.

• This backfired horribly. The very persecution of such a great empire against such a small religion granted the Christians legitimacy that most other mystery cults lacked.

• In the end, the Greco-Roman pantheon, which had survived and expanded for nearly 2,000 years, was effectively wiped from the earth by the victorious Christians.

Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire. Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold. The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble. Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire. Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north. But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north. So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire

• Behold Italy. It may not look like much, but this graceful peninsula would come to be home to one of the largest, most enduring civilizations in human history: the Roman Empire.

• Given its glorious future, we might expect Italy to be a land overflowing with natural resources, but in fact, Italy offered few resources, just a bit of tin, copper, iron and gold.

• The only thing Italy had a lot of was fertile land and some very fine marble.

• Well then, perhaps Italy was a great mercantile center, given its central position and miles of shoreline. But no, the shores of Italy offered few natural harbors, making it surprisingly unsuited to a mercantile empire.

• Maybe Italy was sort of a natural fortress, surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by the Alps to the north.

• But no, Italy's low-lying coastline made it easy to invade by sea. The Alps provided some protection but not very much. It was not an effective barrier against invaders from the north.

So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large population. And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force. And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.' That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered. Early Inhabitants of Italy Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were not the first people to set their sights on Italy. The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE. The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire

• So why, with few resources, few harbors and vulnerable borders, did Italy become the seat of such a mighty empire? • Well, Italy had plenty of fertile land, allowing it to support a large

population.

• And since the people of Italy could not easily acquire other resources through mining or trade, the only option remaining was to take them by force.

• And since Italy offered so few boundaries to invasion, the people of Italy learned the valuable lesson of 'Conquer, or be conquered.'

• That must have been the sight that greeted the first Latin-speaking peoples as they made their way across the Alps between 2,000 and 1,000 BC: a lush, fertile land just begging to be conquered.

• Early Inhabitants of Italy

• Yet these early Latin-speaking invaders, or Latins as they're called, were

not the first people to set their sights on Italy.

• The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. We actually know very little about the Etruscans. We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin. This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BCE. In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns and sarcophagi. As you may have deduced from these burial statues, women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands. Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE.

The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire

• The Italian peninsula was already occupied by Etruscans in the north and Greeks in the south. • We actually know very little about the Etruscans.

• We know that they didn't speak Latin or any of the other Indo-

European languages that had spread from the Black Sea basin.

• This suggests that the Etruscans had been living in Italy since as early as 3-4,000 BC.

• In the centuries that followed, the Etruscans made some neat architectural innovations, including the arch and the vault as well as some pretty art, including murals and sculptures. • The most famous forms of Etruscan art are their funerary urns

and sarcophagi.

• Women enjoyed an elevated status in Etruscan culture. Both the Greeks and Romans wondered at the freedom of Etruscan women, who engaged in public festivals and dined with their husbands.

• Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women. While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE.

The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming. The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations. These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes. The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture. The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire

• Unfortunately, the Romans borrowed the Etruscans' arches and art but not their views on women.

• While the Etruscans were spreading across northern and central Italy, the Greeks began colonizing southern Italy and Sicily around 800 BCE.

• The mountains of Greece might have protected the Greeks from

invasion, but they offered very little good land for farming.

• The fertile plains of Italy served as a breadbasket for growing Greek states, who raced to establish colonies and feed their expanding populations.

• These Greek colonies were just as civilized as their homeland and were centers of art, religion and even philosophy, being the home to such famous philosophers as Pythagoras and Archimedes.

• The Greeks provided the Romans with their alphabet, their religion and many elements of their art and architecture.

The Latin Invaders Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries. We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible. Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy. This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.' Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire

• The Latin Invaders

• Thus the stage is set for the founding of the Roman Empire. We've examined the setting - the fertile but vulnerable Italian peninsula - and we've met most of the cast of characters: the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south. Now, let us look at these Latin invaders and their first steps into Italy. • Our main source for the history of these early Latins is the Roman

historian Livy, whose work 'Ab urbe condita,' From the Founding of Rome, served as a textbook of Roman history for centuries.

• We're not sure how much to trust Livy. He seems to be fairly rational and tends to look at myths with a great deal of skepticism; however, he's still obviously a big fan of Rome and seeks to paint the empire in the best light possible.

• Moreover, Livy wrote his history in the last century of the classical era, at least a thousand years after the first Latin-speaking people found their way to Italy.

• This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.'

Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin invaders came from. The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously. The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization. It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe. Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE. The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire

• The Latin Invaders

• This means even Livy's sources were probably more mythical than historical. And as Livy himself puts it, 'To such legends as these ... I shall attach no great importance.'

• Due to these difficulties, no one is quite sure where the Latin

invaders came from. • The Romans claimed that their Latin ancestors emigrated from

Troy, a far-off city on the coast of Asia Minor and scene of the famous Greek epic The Iliad. Historians do not take this claim very seriously.

• The general assumption is that the Roman link to Troy was an attempt to co-opt some of the glory of Greek civilization.

• It is much more likely that the Latins weren't civilized people from Asia Minor but rather barbarians from somewhere in Northern Europe.

• Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE.

The Myth of Rome's Founding The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans. According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League. At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa. Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers. According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with. Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* Italy: An Unlikely Home to a Mighty Empire

• The Latin Invaders

• Whatever their source, these people forced their way down into the Italian peninsula sometime between the first and second millennium BCE.

• The Myth of Rome's Founding

• The Latins established cities from the Alps all the way down to Central

Italy, violently displacing the native Etruscans.

• According to Livy, these Latin cities banded together for mutual protection, forming the Latin League.

• At the head of this league was the city of Latium, also known as Alba Longa.

• Latium was ruled by a series of kings who engaged in all of the normal scheming and political maneuvering one might expect from rulers.

• According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became pregnant. Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight. Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river. They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd. The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with.

Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* The Age of Kings

• The Myth of Rome's Founding

• According to Roman myth, one of these rulers, a fellow named Amulius, stole his brother's throne. • Fearing his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, might produce an heir to

challenge him, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. • Despite the enforced chastity of her new position, Rhea became

pregnant.

• Some said that Mars, the God of war, did the deed, but even Livy doesn't give this claim much weight.

• Rhea was cast into prison, and her twin sons, Romulus and Remus, were cast into the river.

• They were rescued from the banks of the river by a she-wolf, who suckled the babies as if they were her own until they were found by a shepherd.

• The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium. Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own. They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries. All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself. Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome. Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with.

Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* The Age of Kings

• The Myth of Rome's Founding

• The shepherd raised the babes into young men, and they eventually killed their treacherous uncle, who had so sorely abused their mother and themselves, restoring their grandfather to the throne of Latium.

• Inspired by their victory, the young men set out to found a city of their own.

• They found the perfect spot along the river Tiber and marked out its boundaries.

• All that remained was to give the city a name. Each of the brothers thought the city should be named after himself.

• Eventually the conflict came to blows, and Romulus slew his brother Remus, giving the city its new name: Rome.

• Livy gives the date of this founding as 753 BCE, a date that even modern historians seem to agree with.

Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy. He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds. Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.' Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* The Age of Kings

• The Myth of Rome's Founding

• Romulus then set about establishing his city. He built the walls of Rome, already planning for the city to be larger than any other in Italy.

• He established the religion of Rome, borrowing some customs from the Greeks, like the worship of Hercules, and some from the Etruscans, like the practice of augury, or predicting the future by the flight of birds.

• Romulus is also credited with the establishment of Roman law since, as Livy put it, 'Nothing else but law could unite them into a single body politic.'

• Finally, Romulus is supposed to have established the senatorial class, made up of the founding fathers of Rome. • Roman senators centuries later would take pride in tracing their

lineage back to these original few men. The Kings of Rome When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families. Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy. This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE. Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our disposal. Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy. Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic. Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* The Age of Kings

• The Kings of Rome

• When we think of Rome, we tend to think of the Roman Empire, a sprawling collection of nations and peoples ruled by a single emperor. Or we might think of the Roman Republic, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, ruled by vying aristocratic families.

• Yet in 753 BCE, Rome was just a new city-state, and like so many city-states of its time, Rome was ruled by a monarchy.

• This monarchy persisted for more than two centuries until the establishment of the republic in 510 BCE.

• Unfortunately, we don't have many details of this monarchy at our

disposal.

• Rome's city records were destroyed during the sack of Rome in 390. Later generations of Romans pieced together a history of their early monarchy from legend and myth. The resulting account is rather short on detail and of questionable accuracy.

• Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history. As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim. However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic.

Roman Monarchy According to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city and gave it its name. We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time. Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne. Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings. This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* The Age of Kings

• The Kings of Rome

• Romans of the later republic were not big fans of kings and may have attempted to weave republican ideals into their history.

• As a result, we're not even sure if the kings they list even existed, let alone did the things the Roman historians claim.

• However, we can piece together a rough history of these legendary kings of Rome and at least see how the Roman monarchy eventually gave way to the novel Roman Republic.

• So, according to Roman legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus,

who founded the city and gave it its name.

• We're not sure if Romulus was a real person or just a figure of legend, but he certainly seems to have been a rather enlightened leader for his time.

• Romulus did not establish an absolute monarchy in which the king controlled every aspect of the state. Nor did he set up a dynastic monarchy in which princes succeeded their fathers to the throne.

• Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies. He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. The Senate was mostly advisory in function. The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power to elect future kings. He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings.

This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king. In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government in one. He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws. He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one. The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* The Age of Kings

• The Kings of Rome

• Instead, Romulus set up a sort of limited monarchy in which the power of the king is checked by other government bodies.

• He established a council of founding fathers known as the Senate. • The Senate was mostly advisory in function.

• The only real power Romulus granted the Senate was the power

to elect future kings.

• He probably got this idea from the Etruscans, who used a similar system to elect their own kings.

• This still left a lot of authority in the hands of the king.

• In modern terms, the king was all three branches of government

in one. • He was the legislative branch, coming up with new laws.

• He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army. He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases. The king also served a religious function. He served as the intermediary between the gods and the people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion. So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one.

The Duly Elected Kings of Rome Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'

* The Age of Kings

• The Kings of Rome

• He was the executive branch, enforcing the laws of the state, managing state property and commanding the Roman army.

• He was the judicial branch, sitting in judgment of all civil and criminal cases.

• The king also served a religious function. • He served as the intermediary between the gods and the

people of Rome and had administrative control over the state's religion.

• So while it may be tempting to see a system of checks and balances in the relationship between the Senate and the king, the Senate, at first at least, only exercised real authority during the brief periods between the death of the last king and the election of a new one.

• The Duly Elected Kings of Rome

Following Romulus, Roman historians record the election of four more kings of Rome. They attributed the creation of many Roman traditions and sacraments to these duly elected kings. Though I shall list the dates of their reign, you should know that few historians take these dates very seriously. The first was Numa Pompilius, who supposedly ruled from 715 BCE to 674 BCE. Numa is credited with Reforming the Roman calendar to include the months of January and February Establishing the traditional Roman guild system Relocating the Vestal Virgins from Alba Longa to Rome Introducing several Roman religious rituals Upon Numa's death, the Senate elected Tullus Hostilius, who reigned from 673 BCE to 642 BCE. Historians are pretty sure Tullus actually existed, but beyond that we know very little. The Romans gave him credit for Conquering many of Rome's Latin neighbors, including the old Latin capital of Alba Longa Building the first Senate House, the Curia Hostilia Next came Ancus Marcius, who reigned from 641 BCE to 617 BCE. Marcius was the grandson of Numa, suggesting that though the Roman crown was not hereditary, certain families still tried to make it so. Marcius' contributions to Roman history are almost entirely on the field of battle. He conquered many neighboring Latin cities and relocated their residents to Rome, making them new Roman citizens. He also founded the Roman port city of Ostia. The last of the duly elected Roman kings was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, AKA Tarquin the Elder, who ruled from 616 BCE to 579 BCE. According to our Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius was not a Roman at all but rather an Etruscan nobleman who emigrated to Rome. The king at the time, Ancus Marius, was so impressed with Lucius that he appointed him the caretaker of his sons. Thus elevated, Lucius made a bid for the throne upon Marius' death and won the support of the Senate. The Romans considered Lucius Tarquinius one of their greatest kings. Abroad, he flexed his military muscles in campaigns against Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. At home, he added several important civic structures to Rome, including the Circus Maximus - the great Roman racetrack - and the Cloaca Maxima, Rome's impressive sewer system. Rome's Last Two Kings The death of Tarquinius Priscus marked the end of the legitimate kingship in Rome. Tarquinius Priscus was not succeeded by an elected king but rather by his son-in-law, Servius Tullius, who ruled from 578 BCE to 535 BCE. Despite his unusual path to power, Servius was remembered fondly by the Romans, who attributed many important parts of their society to him. Servius supposedly tried to decrease the power of the aristocracy and grant greater power to the common people. He came up with a new class system that extended the vote to a much larger portion of the Roman population, and changed voting rights to align with people's place of residence rather than their lineage. He also replaced the aristocratic comitia curiata with the more inclusive comitia centuriata. Yet, Servius still took efforts to maintain the authority of the aristocracy by making sure that the few votes of the rich could always outweigh the many votes of the poor. These reforms had a military aspect as well, since the divisions of classes determined a person's military obligation to the state. The last king of Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, who ruled from 534 BCE to 509 BCE. This Tarquin was the grandson of Tarquin the Elder, the last legitimate king of Rome. Tarquin the Proud's reign was marked by some great victories, some horrible failures and some good old-fashioned cruelty. Tarquin arranged for the murder of his predecessor, Servius Tullius. As the old king lay dying on the street, Tarquin immediately seized power and killed off many important senators, making enemies of the Senatorial class. Following his ascension to the throne, Tarquin united the remaining Latin towns under Roman rule and began a very successful campaign against the Volsci and the Sabines, pillaging many of their cities and making him increasingly wealthy. This wealth allowed him to win public support through festivals and circuses. When the money ran out, Tarquin set out to conquer the wealthy Rutuli, but the campaign went poorly. With no more money to appease the commoners and the aristocracy enraged, Tarquin found himself on shaky ground. In the middle of this delicate situation, Tarquin's son Sextus raped an important Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Dishonored, Lucretia killed herself. With this, the Tarquins had gone too far. The Rape of Lucretia became a rallying cry for commoner and noble alike. Tarquin was thrown out of town by Lucretia's widowed husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus, whose descendant would later overthrow Julius Caesar. In 509 BCE, the Roman people were tired of kings. Their king, Tarquin the Proud, had alienated himself from most of the population. He'd murdered his political opponents, making enemies of the aristocracy. He'd also run out of money to buy the love of the commoners and led a disastrous campaign against some of Rome's neighbors. Worst of all, Tarquin's son, Sextus, had raped a noblewoman named Lucretia. This last offense was too much for the Romans. Led by Lucretia's widowed husband, the Romans drove the terrible Tarquin king and his horrid princes into exile. Since they'd just gotten rid of their old king, the Romans were none too keen on getting a new one. Rome would no longer be the plaything of kings. Instead, Rome would be a public thing. That is what the word 'Republic' means. 'Res' is a general word meaning 'thing or matter,' and 'publica' means 'public'. Res Publica, the public thing. To ensure that this new republican government was accountable to the public, several reforms slowly transformed the old Roman monarchy into a republic. At the heart of these reforms lay a single core concept: checks and balances. Romans wanted to make sure that no individual could ever wield the sort of power their kings once had. Instead, they wanted every official to be held accountable to the public and the state. This concern would provide the main motivation for pretty much all of the reforms of the Roman Republic. The Consul The first thing the Romans needed to do was replace their king with some sort of executive. The warlike Romans knew that command could not be handled by a large group. Leadership, especially in war, offers little opportunity for debate. It requires split-second decisions and unquestioned authority. At the same time, the Romans didn't want to give that sort of unquestioned authority to a single man, and they certainly didn't want anyone holding such power for very long. So the Romans came up with a novel solution: They'd take the responsibilities of the king and split them between two people, called consuls. That way neither consul had absolute power, since the other consul could veto him. And to make sure no consul was able to cause too much trouble, they limited the consul's term to one year and required them to wait 10 years before serving a second term. Patrician Power Splitting up the authority of the king was just the first step the Romans took to check the power of their government. They also greatly increased the power of the Senate. The Senate was a council of Roman aristocrats, called patricians, that used to advise the Roman kings. Under the Republic, the Senate gained control of public funds. This added another effective check to the power of the consuls, since whatever the consuls decided to do, the Senate could always deny them the money to do it. The patricians of Rome also found another outlet for power in the Assembly of the Curia. The Curia were the 30 foremost patrician families of Rome. In the early republic, these families would send representatives to an assembly, which voted on legislation, tried capital court cases, and most importantly, elected the consuls. Between the Senate and the Assembly of the Curia, the patricians of Rome now held far greater sway than they had under the king. However, the common people of Rome, known as plebeians (or just plebs), still felt as powerless as they had ever been. Shared Power few decades after the foundation of the republic, efforts were made to increase the voice of the plebs. Another assembly, the Assembly of Centuries, came to the forefront. This assembly, made up of Roman soldier divisions, called Centuries, had supposedly been around since the time of Roman kings. In the Republic, this Assembly of Centuries gained much authority, eventually taking many of the powers of the Assembly of the Curia. Eventually, they got the right to elect consuls, as well as some other new positions, like censors, who were in charge of measuring the Roman population and adding new members to the Senate. Finally, only the Assembly of the Centuries could declare war. The Assembly of the Centuries was neither purely plebeian nor purely patrician. It was a mixed bag. However, the superior number of the plebs were outweighed by the fact that the weight of one's vote in the Assembly was determined by the amount of property one owned. Thus, the richest members of Rome still controlled most of the voting power. Another new assembly was the Assembly of Tribes. The Assembly of Tribes came about as the result of a reorganization of the Roman population. Instead of being divided by lineage and relationship to a patrician family, the Tribes of Rome were instead divided by geographical location. The resulting tribes formed an assembly, which voted on legislative matters. They also elected public officials, such as quaestors, who were the police of the time. The assembly was also a mixed bag of patricians and plebs. Unlike the Assembly of the Centuries, the weight of one's vote was not dependent on one's property or wealth. However, since each tribe had but one vote, and since patricians were rich and influential, the aristocratic patricians were still calling the shots. Plebeian Power Though the plebs now had the right to vote, and though they outnumbered the patricians by a large margin, they still found their political power rather limited. Patricians got the first vote in the Assembly of Centuries, and their votes counted for more. Patricians also seemed to get their way in the Assembly of Tribes more often than not. Moreover, all the highest positions of authority were reserved for members of the patrician class. A patrician consul, elected by a patrician assembly and accountable only to his fellow patricians, was unlikely to show much respect to the plebs beneath him. Eventually, the plebs got fed up with this abuse. They were the ones who fought in Rome's army. They were the ones who produced all the food. Why shouldn't they have a voice? In 494 BCE, the plebs had had enough. In the middle of a war, the plebs dropped their weapons, left the city of Rome en masse, and threatened to start their own city nearby and leave the patricians to figure out how to fight the enemy as well as how to feed and clothe themselves. The plebs refused to return until they had been given the power to elect their own officials. This mass strike had the desired effect. The plebs formed the Plebeian Council, which was organized just like the Assembly of Tribes, except that it excluded the patrician class from its ranks. This council started out with just one form of real power. They could elect a plebeian tribune. The tribune was an enormously powerful political position. Though he could not make laws or execute them, he had the power to veto the proposals of any other political body in Rome, including the consuls and the Senate. With this veto, the tribune could protect the plebs from oppressive taxes and unfair prosecution by patricians. As time went by, the Plebeian Council gained more and more power. They gained the right to make laws. At first, these laws applied only to plebs and could be vetoed by the Senate. However, as time went by and the common people gained greater power, the Senate lost the power to veto pleb laws, and eventually, laws passed by the Plebeian Council applied to patricians and plebs equally. Rome's Neighbors In 509 BCE, the Romans chased their last king out of town, and the Roman Republic was formed. Rome was not yet the seat of a mighty empire. It was just one of many cities seeking control over Italy. To the north were the Etruscans, to the east were the Samnites, to the far south were the Greeks, and right at Rome's doorsteps were the cities of the other Latins, united by a common language, yet not by common leadership. Rome quickly rose to the forefront of its fellow Latin city-states and sought to lead them all. Though some of the Latin states resisted, following the battle of Lake Regillus in 493 BCE, Rome took leadership of the former Latin League as part of a mutual defense pact called the Treaty of Cassius. Though the other Latin cities grumbled, Rome's leadership was essential. The Latins were a tiny minority compared to the more powerful neighbors like Etruscans, Samnites, and the Volsci. The Latin cities needed Rome to protect them from their neighbors. The First Samnite War (343-341 BCE) Latins were not the only people who sought Rome's protection from powerful neighbors. In 343 BCE, the Campani people of Capua, under attack from their Samnite neighbors, surrendered their city and territory to Rome rather than have it fall into the hands of invaders. This put Rome into something of a pickle, since they had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Samnites. They sent emissaries informing the Samnites that Campania was under Roman protection. When the Samnites attacked anyway, Rome declared war, and this began the First Samnite War. Rome sent two armies - one to defend Campania and the other to attack the Samnites at home in Samnium. The Romans enjoyed several victories, and after two years of fighting, the Samnites were soundly defeated and signed a peace treaty with Rome. Rome's territory now included the lands of the Campania. The Latin War (340-338 BCE) Between the Romans and their new lands around Capua lay a number of Latin city-states. As Rome looked for ways to unify its territory, the Latins must have felt rather threatened. As the power of Rome grew, the Latins became less and less afraid of their neighbors, and more and more afraid of Rome. Indeed, the Latins were in the middle of plotting a rebellion against Rome until news of the Roman victory over the Samnites reached them. The Latins instead turned their armies against the recently-beaten Samnites, conducting raids and nibbling away at their territory. They were joined in these forays by the recently-liberated Campani, seeking revenge against the Samnite invaders. The Samnites complained to Rome, asking them to honor the peace treaty they had just signed and control their subject cities. But when Rome tried to rein in the Latins and Campani, they turned against Rome in a full-scale revolt, known today as the Latin War. This war was the last bid of the smaller states of central Italy for independence. The Latins and Campani were joined by the Volsci, the Sidicini, and the Aurunci. Meanwhile, the Romans found unlikely allies in the recently-defeated Samnites, and these two states, representing the toughest powers in central Italy, effectively crushed the resisting states between them. The big guys teamed up against the little guys, and the little guys fell in line. Samnium's territory was secured, and Rome now controlled the entire western coast of central Italy. The Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE) Yet this newfound friendship between Rome and Samnium would not last long. The Romans were eager to spread eastward into the mountains. The Samnites wanted to establish a foothold on the western coast of Italy. As the Romans began establishing colonies in, technically, Samnite land, the Samnites seized control of the city of Neapolis, modern day Naples. The people of Neapolis appealed to Rome for help, and the Second or Great Samnite War began. This war stretched for the better part of two decades with neither side able to pull off a decisive victory. Though Rome suffered some serious setbacks, they quickly learned from their mistakes. To defend their coastal interests, the Romans built their first navy. To move troops around quickly and keep them supplied, the Romans began building an impressive network of roads. To keep up with the constant drain on manpower, Roman conscription reached new levels. To help hold their gains, the Romans established colonies in conquered territory. These decisions not only helped the Romans defeat their rivals, but would also prove instrumental in the future expansion of the empire. By 304 BCE, the Samnites, who had fought so hard to gain access to the western coast, found themselves landlocked. Their coastal territory in eastern Italy fell into Roman hands, and the Samnites were forced to take refuge in their mountain strongholds. The Third Samnite War (298-290 BCE) Frustrated by Rome in central Italy, the Samnites attempted to expand southward, in the vain hope of regaining some sort of coastal territory. They attacked the Lucanians, who, in turn, appealed to Rome for help. Alarmed by this Samnite aggression, Rome once again declared war, beginning the Third (and final) Samnite War. Seeing this as perhaps their last chance to halt the progress of Rome, a wide variety of northern Italians joined forces with the Samnites. Etruscans, Umbrians, even the barbaric Gauls joined forces with Samnium against Rome. Though the Romans were hard pressed to face this unified front, their superior discipline and leadership led them to defeat the combined forces. By 290 BCE, the Samnites had been conquered completely. Rome now controlled central Italy from coast to coast. The Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) Having proceeded as far east as they could go, the Romans now turned their eyes south to the lands controlled by Greek colonies. They found an excuse to start a war when the city of Tarentum sunk some Roman ships off their coast. Rome declared war on Tarentum. Tarentum appealed to the Greek mainland for assistance. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, answered their call. In 280 BCE, Pyrrhus landed in Italy with a significant army. Though King Pyrrhus was nominally victorious, he suffered heavy casualties in his battles with the Romans. The result was a war of attrition. The Romans were simply able to replace soldiers faster than Pyrrhus could. After less than five years of war, King Pyrrhus was soundly defeated, and the Romans added southern Italy to their territory. A decade later, to the north, the last Etruscan stronghold fell. In two and a half centuries, the Romans had effectively conquered the whole of Italy, from the Arnus river to the tip of the peninsula. Roman Dominance of Italy By the mid third century BCE, the Romans reigned supreme in Italy. They'd squashed the Sabines, vanquished the Volsci, trounced the Etruscans, slaughtered the Samnites, unmanned the Umbrians, messed up the Messapians and even grappled with Greeks. They only stopped fighting because they'd run out of land to conquer. Italy was now entirely under the control of the Roman Republic. Yet a threat to Roman supremacy was growing right at their doorstep. Just off the toe of Italy sits the island of Sicily. And that island was being conquered by another ambitious city-state with its own imperial designs. Just across the Mediterranean, on the shores of Africa, stood Carthage. Rome and Carthage: Similarities and Differences Carthage is, in many ways, a mirror of Rome. Carthage was founded as a Phoenecian Colony around 800 BCE; Rome was founded fewer than 50 years later. As a result of this slight delay, the Carthaginians had a small head start on the Romans, and the fact that theirs was a naval empire while Rome was a land empire gave them a still greater advantage. But Carthage's greatest advantage was that it was a Phoenician colony trying to unify other Phoenician colonies, with whom they shared a common language and culture. By contrast, the Romans were invaders forced to fight against dozens of independent peoples who all spoke different languages. Carthage's many advantages meant that Carthage was capital of a prosperous coastal empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. They controlled the northern coast of Africa, the southern coast of Spain and most of the islands of the western Mediterranean, including half of Sicily. By contrast, Rome was the capital of a mere peninsula, albeit a densely populated one. Yet relative size was not the only difference between the Carthaginians and the Romans. Carthage was a city of traders. They were ruled by a council of merchant princes. They were highly civilized, literate and scientifically advanced, though they also may have engaged in human sacrifice. What's important to know now is that the Carthaginians had built their empire through trade and wealth as much as through force. By contrast, Rome was a nation of soldiers and farmers. Their republic was run, in many respects, like an oversized military camp. Roman culture was relatively primitive compared to the advanced Carthaginians. They did not have Carthage's wealth or intercontinental trade routes at their disposal. But what the Romans lacked in money and refinement, they made up for in manpower, strict organization and ferocity. Combining these attributes, the Romans had built their empire through conquest and bloodshed. The First Punic War In 264 BCE the ambitious Roman Republic and the wealthy Carthaginian Empire collided on the island of Sicily in the first Punic War. This war was very similar to Athens' battle with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in that it pitted a powerful army against a large and maneuverable navy. It was a drawn-out, bloody affair, with the Carthaginians trying to keep the battle at sea and the Romans trying to force the battle to land. After 24 years of continuous warfare that exhausted both cities, Carthage was driven from Sicily and forced to pay Rome a huge war indemnity, or fine. Bankrupted by the war and the indemnity and unable to pay its mercenaries, the Carthaginian Empire was thrown into a mercenary war. Rome took advantage of the chaos to add the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to its growing Mediterranean empire. The Second Punic War: Causes After a while, the Carthaginians got their house in order and sought to expand their empire again. Frustrated at sea by growing Roman dominance, the Carthaginians instead started colonizing the Iberian Peninsula. The native Iberians weren't nearly so viciously organized as the Romans, and the Carthaginians spread easily. The Romans were once again nervous about the growing power of Carthage, or at least that's what the Roman historians say. Personally, I think that Rome was just looking for a new target for their annual warfare since they'd just finished conquering Illyria across the Adriatic in 219 BCE. Whatever the reason, in 218 BCE, Rome declared war and the Second Punic War began. The Roman navy had improved significantly since the beginning of the last Punic War, and they were confident they could hold off any Carthaginian invasion. Yet while the Romans had been beefing up their navy, the Carthaginians had been building up a huge army in Spain. Rome was so fixated on rebuffing the Carthaginian navy that it never occurred to them that someone might be crazy enough to march that bit Spanish army over the Alps and invade Italy by land. Yet that is just what the Carthaginian general did. The Second Punic War: Hannibal That general's name was Hannibal, and his military genius made him one of the most fearful figures in Roman history. When Hannibal's army, which included dozens of war elephants, descended from the Alps, he must have felt much like those first Latins had felt looking down on the Italian peninsula a thousand years earlier. Here was a lush land just begging to be conquered. Indeed, had Hannibal not lost his siege engines during his passage through the Alps, he very well might have conquered all of Italy. Hannibal smashed every army the Romans put in front of him, but without siege equipment, he was unable to take Rome itself. Instead, Hannibal laid waste across the countryside and tried to entice other Italian cities to rebel. For some reason, not one Italian city took up arms against Rome. Perhaps it was loyalty, or perhaps these cities feared Rome more than they feared this invader. Whatever the reason, Hannibal's plan to turn Rome's subjects against it failed. Nevertheless, through his military genius, Hannibal ravaged Italy for 16 years! You may be wondering - how did Hannibal catch the mighty Romans with their pants down? Shouldn't they have been better prepared? After all, they were the ones who started the war. There are two reasons Rome fared so poorly. I've already mentioned the first problem. No one had expected Hannibal to take his army over the mountains. Rome had been expecting another naval war like the first Punic War, so Roman troops were scattered across numerous islands. The second problem was that Rome had overextended itself. While Hannibal was ravaging his way across Italy, Philip V of Macedon had taken advantage of the chaos to expand his own kingdom. Philip's invasion of Greece and Illyria prevented the veteran armies Rome had deployed to the east from returning home to reinforce Italy. Unable to bring its full strength to bear against Hannibal, the Romans had to resort to delaying techniques. The Second Punic War: Scipio Africanus Once Philip had been dealt with, some of Rome's best armies were once again available for battle. Rather than running home to oust the invader, the Roman general Scipio brought the fight to Carthage. Scipio invaded Africa, earning him the name Scipio Africanus and, more importantly, cutting off Hannibal's supply lines. Hannibal hurried home with his army and was soundly defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. The following year, Carthage surrendered. The mighty Carthaginian Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Carthage itself, and Rome further burdened Carthage with an even larger war indemnity than for the first Punic War. Meanwhile, Carthage's holdings in Spain were added to the Roman Empire. Rome had also gained territory during their simultaneous war with Philip V of Macedon and gained a foothold in Africa by establishing Numidia as a client state. Things were looking pretty good for Rome and pretty terrible for Carthage. In a single lifetime, little more than 60 years, Rome and Carthage had reversed positions. Rome was now the dominant force in the western Mediterranean; it had added Carthage's European territory to the empire and extended its reach eastward. By contrast, Carthage was now the underdog, allowed to live only because the Romans could get more money out of Carthage through Carthage paying the indemnity than they could by pillaging the city. The Third Punic War Fifty years later, Carthage had finally managed to pay off that huge indemnity, meaning that Rome no longer had any interest in keeping them alive. In an act of pure tyranny, Rome demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and resettle 10 miles inland. For a trading nation, this was a death sentence. Carthage naturally refused, and Rome descended upon its old nemesis with all its might, besieging the city for two years before it fell at last in 146 BCE. The Republic Begins When the Romans overthrew their Etruscan rulers in the year 509 BCE, they weren't just changing their political status. They were establishing a form of government that would influence politics for thousands of years to come. Upon freeing themselves from the conquering Etruscans of the north, the Romans formed a republic, a system of government in which citizens choose representatives to govern on their behalf. With this, they established a governmental system, which was a precursor to many in our modern day world. The Class Structure To understand the political structure of the Roman Republic, we must first understand the importance of social class. The natural born inhabitants of the Republic, who were not slaves, were broken into two main groups. They were the patricians, members of the upper class including the nobility and the wealthy landowners, and the plebeians, or the common people of Rome. Unlike today's society where people can move up and down the social ladder, the patricians and plebeians of Rome were completely separate and distinct. Intermarriage between the classes was forbidden. Making these social classes even more of a dividing line was whether a man was a patrician or a plebeian dictated what position he could hold within the beginning political structure of the Republic. Consuls If a man was a patrician, he could hold the highest position in government, known as consul. Since this position oversaw the workings of the government and its officials, while also being the commander of the army outside the city of Rome, we can draw some loose parallels to it and the American presidency. However, unlike the Presidency, two patrician men ruled as consuls. They had the power to veto one another and were limited to a one year term. In times of crisis, and in order to make swift, concise decisions, one man could be elevated to dictator over the Republic. Senate Trying to make sure the patricians could keep control, the consuls were elected from the Senate, a group of 300 patricians who were, in essence, the law makers of Rome. They made decisions on spending, while also controlling taxation and relationships with foreign powers. Again, we can loosely compare the Roman Senate to the legislative branch of the American government. However, there are some major differences. Perhaps most obvious, the senators of Rome were not chosen by the citizens. They were chosen by the Consul, and they were elected for life. The Assembly The last governing body of the Roman Republic was the Assembly. The Assembly allowed plebeians, or common citizens, into its membership. Like the First Amendment right to assemble, the Assembly had the right to assemble in the forum, or the marketplace and business center of Rome. Fortunately for the Assembly, they had one ace up their sleeve. As the Republic aged, they were in charge of choosing the consuls. Yes, the consuls were elected from the Senate but not by the Senate. The honor of choosing went to the Assembly. Since the Assembly chose the consuls, any senator hoping to gain the highest position in government needed to win the favor of the Assembly. Just imagine, a wealthy patrician courting a common plebeian! This setup allowed the wealthier plebeians, who were not patricians no matter how much money they made, to wield substantial power. It was politics at its best! With this setup, it's not hard to imagine why the Assembly gained power. They were also given the right to elect tribunes, a position which acted very much like a president of the plebeians. The man holding this position had the right to intervene on legal matters and veto legislation. He also held the right to summon the Senate, even making proposals for their consideration. Between 449 and 450 BCE, the plebeians of Rome gained another victory through the Law of the Twelve Tables. These were a code of laws, which spelled out civil matters, crime and punishment, and relationships among citizens and family members. Most important about these new laws was that both patricians and plebeians were bound by them. Soon following the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Assembly had gained such power that plebeians were given the right to marry patricians, and even a plebeian could be Consul! Ironically, the growing power of the Assembly would be blamed for the fall of the Republic. Rome's Debt to Greek Architecture It has been said that the Greeks were architects, while the Romans were engineers. Roman architecture is very similar to Greek architecture, in style at least. When the Romans wanted to build something impressive, they looked to their Greek predecessors. The Romans used the same sorts of columns, the same sorts of sculptural decorations and many of the same architectural forms as the Greeks. Despite these similarities, no one would confuse a Roman temple with a Greek temple. There are distinct differences between Greek and Roman architecture, but these differences are more practical than stylistic. In many cases, the Romans slavishly copied Greek forms but used different techniques or materials. These different techniques and materials also allowed the Romans to construct buildings that even the brilliant Greeks would have found impossible to replicate. So, while the Romans clearly took their inspiration from the Greeks, Roman engineering allowed Rome to create an architectural style all its own. Brick and Mortar Masonry Rome's distinct architecture was the direct result of five main Roman inventions. The first of these was cement, a blend of lime, volcanic ash or pulverized stone, and water. Cement is, essentially, liquid rock, which dries into a solid. Cement also bonds to any materials touching it. Equipped with this rocky glue, it was just a small step for the Romans to make their next big invention: brick and mortar masonry, a building technique in which small, fired bricks are held together by mortar. All previous architectural styles - from the Sumerians to the Greeks - depended on friction and gravity to hold their structures together. If a Greek wanted to build something huge, he had to use huge blocks of stone to build it. These huge stone slabs were expensive to make and difficult to transport. By contrast, brick and mortar masonry allowed the Romans to build large, durable structures out of small, cheap, local materials. Concrete Brick and mortar masonry was only one of the uses the Romans had for cement. The other was concrete, a mixture of cement and gravel, which can be poured into forms. Once dried, concrete was as strong and durable as stone. The implications of concrete are massive. With concrete you can, essentially, make a stone of any shape and size you want. Best yet, you can make it out of miniscule materials. This is huge! Say you wanted to build a gigantic solid structure, like the Hoover Dam. You can't build the Hoover Dam using masonry; the water pressure would tear it apart. It must be one solid piece of stone. Without concrete, you'd have to find a stone larger than the Hoover Dam, carve it into shape and drag it into place. In short, it is impossible. But with concrete, you can build almost anything, and it will be water-proof, strong and practically permanent. Indeed, many Roman structures are still standing a thousand years later. This is partially because Roman concrete, with its high volcanic ash content, is actually more durable and resistant to weathering than the concrete we make and use today. Thus we've seen how Rome's mastery of cement and its children (mortar and concrete) allowed the Romans to build massive structures out of the tiniest particles. Yet the Roman architectural achievement was not limited to material sciences. With these new materials at hand, the Romans began exploring new architectural techniques. The Roman Arch The greatest and most distinctly Roman of these is the arch. To appreciate the arch, we must look at what preceded it. Before the arch, all doorways, windows and bridges (pretty much every structure people could pass through) were built along the same lines: two posts and a lintel. Those posts might be mudbrick walls, marble columns or anything in between. But the lintel had to be made of tougher stuff. To span the gap, a lintel had to be long and solid. To hold what lay above it, the lintel had to be tough and thick. For small openings, a wooden beam might serve, but large openings required stone, and larger openings, like gates, required ever larger stones. The reason for this is clear: though the lintel stone is long and thick, all of the pressure of the building rests on these two points, where the lintel meets the post. The weight above is constantly trying to break the lintel off at these points. To hold up to this, the lintel had to have a very strong shear strength, or resistance to being broken off on a plane parallel to the force. When you cut something with a knife or break it over your knee, you've overpowered its shear strength. Stone is not well known for its shear strength. The only way to make a stone lintel stronger was to make it thicker. The result was that, of all the pieces of a building, the lintel stones were often the largest and most expensive. The arch overcomes all the problems of the post and lintel construction method. First, arches redistribute the weight of the load they're bearing. Instead of all that force resting on two points, the force is spread over a larger area. The force is also passed from stone to stone, all the way down to the posts. Thus, rather than depending on the shear strength of stone, the arch depends on its compressive strength, or how well it holds up to being crushed. While stone's shear strength is negligible, its compressive strength is excellent. You can crack a rock easily with a well-aimed blow, but it is not nearly so easy to crush a rock. The Roman arch was incredibly strong and durable. In fact, arches are often the only thing still standing in a Roman ruin. The arch also relieved some of the expense of building. You no longer needed a massive lintel stone to build a massive door. You just needed more little blocks. Just as with cement, concrete and brick and mortar, the Romans had found a way to use small, local materials to construct massive structures. Now, the Romans did not exactly invent the arch. People had been using arches to hold up ceilings in tunnels and tombs for quite some time, and there may be evidence that some cultures may have used the arch to build gates in their walls. What the Romans did was to perfect this underground technology and make it mainstream. Aqueducts The Romans used arches everywhere. Their most obvious application was the aqueduct. These huge, elevated channels could carry water hundreds of miles across rolling terrain, while maintaining a steady, gradual slope from their source to their destination. This scale of engineering would be impossible without the material-saving inventions of masonry and the arch. Aqueducts brought fresh running water to Roman cities, allowing the Romans to build fountains and baths even in the driest regions. Roman aqueducts are among the most enduring legacies of their mighty Empire. There are many European cities that still depend on Roman aqueducts for their water. The Roman arch reached its apex in the Colosseum, a massive amphitheatre covering over six acres of land, over 150 feet tall and capable of seating over 50,000 spectators. The Colosseum demonstrates just how far the Romans were able to take the arch. Yet the Romans were not done with the arch. No, one day it occurred to some clever Roman that the same shape that worked in two dimensions could also work in three. From this observation, the dome was invented. The Dome Behold! The Pantheon. One of the most amazing structures ever built. Its massive dome, weighing nearly five-thousand tons, spans 150 feet unsupported and rises almost as high in the air. The interior could house a sphere 142 feet in diameter. At the height of the dome there is an oculus, a hole nearly 30 feet in diameter, which let in light to relieve the darkness of this massive, enclosed space. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. After the fall of Roman Empire, later generations of architects would go mad trying to replicate this engineering marvel. A Roman could have explained it easily. Take an arch, then spin it around 360 degrees. That is a dome. Yet, even if the architects of the Middle Ages could have grasped this concept, they were missing the key element: concrete. The dome of the Pantheon was literally poured into place. The Romans pulled out every trick in their books to make five-thousand tons of concrete float unsupported. They created regular square insets in the ceiling called koffers. These koffers were essentially little arches within the dome. This cut at least a quarter of the weight of the dome. The Romans also mixed their concrete with lighter and lighter rocks as the dome rose higher, and thereby nearly halved the pressure on the bottom of the dome. All in all, the Pantheon is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. Roads Not all Roman construction projects were so majestic. The Romans were also famous for building roads. Despite their mundane nature, Roman roads are, in many ways, even more impressive than the Pantheon - not because of their style, but because of their scale. At the height of the Empire, there were over 53 thousand miles of Roman roads. This network spanned three continents, from the Thames to the Tigris and beyond. But Roman roads weren't just extensive; they were built to last. Even after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Roman roads remained the best roads in the world for over a thousand years and were only improved upon in the 19th century. The Roman road system enhanced trade and travel throughout the Empire, and indeed, the Romans were some of the first tourists in history. Yet Romans did not build these roads to move carts of goods, or to help its citizens go on a holiday. The Roman road system had one purpose: to move soldiers about the Empire quickly. The Roman soldiers did not just use the roads; they built them. Rome had one of the largest standing armies in history. When these soldiers had no one to kill, they were put to work building roads, aqueducts and even entire cities. The fact that unskilled soldiers could consistently produce structures of such quality and endurance shows that, for the Romans, architecture was no longer an art but a science. Law: Rome's Greatest Export Of all Rome's contributions to Western civilization, Roman law is probably their greatest legacy. It has been said that law and order were Rome's biggest exports. As the Roman Empire expanded, the Romans imposed their legal system on the territories that they conquered. Feuding nations one by one fell into the fold of the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and the Mediterranean entered an era of peace and prosperity that lasted for about two centuries. The History of Roman Law Roman law has a history nearly as old as Rome itself. In the early days of the republic, Roman law was held in the minds and memories of Rome's judges and magistrates. Such a system was prime for abuse. A magistrate could forget or even change laws on a whim, and there was no way to question him. And since magistrates were aristocrats (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the common people, or plebs, had little hope of finding justice in such a system. The plebs protested this justice system for many years, until at last, in 450 BCE, Roman law was codified and written down in the famous Twelve Tables of Rome. This written law guaranteed that all, high as well as low, were subject to the laws of Rome. As the years went by and the republic matured and became more inclusive, the Roman legal system was reformed to accommodate these changes. The rulings of judges began to be used as precedent for future cases, as did the edicts of praetors. Simultaneously, philosophical ideals from Stoicism found their way into Roman law. These reforms did not stop with the death of the republic and the rise of the Principate. Roman emperors, struggling to deal with the new challenges of the empire, would often appoint imperial jurists to refine and interpret the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these jurists helped established the philosophical underpinnings of law, creating a philosophy of justice that endures to this day. The Three Branches of Roman Law So let us take a look at the fruits of these men's labors and explore the scope and depth of Roman law. The Romans divided their law into three branches: civil law, the law of peoples, and natural law. Civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. These laws enumerated the rights and obligations of Roman citizenship. It included statutes of the senate, decrees of the emperor, the edicts of praetors, and of course, customs older than Rome itself. The law of peoples was a later development that came about as the Romans rushed to provide laws for the peoples they'd conquered. Unlike civil law, which was only intended for Roman citizens, the law of peoples applied to all people, regardless of nationality. The law of peoples established the rights of personal property. Historians these days now look at the protection of personal property as the foundation of any just society. Yet before we give the Romans too much credit, we should note that the rights of personal property included the right to own another person as a slave. The law of peoples also laid down the laws of trade, commerce, and contracts. While the Romans were developing their civil and people's laws, a separate, more philosophical concept of law began to develop. This was a law for all people and for all time. Under the influence of the Stoics, the Romans gradually came to the conclusion that the whole universe obeyed a rational natural order and that this order was just and right. The Romans called this order natural law. A great Roman statesman named Cicero believed that this natural law superseded the laws of men and states. Roman natural law held that all men were born equal and that they have certain rights that no government can violate. Nearly 2,000 years later, this Roman concept of natural law would inspire the founding fathers of America. The Pax Romana This legal spirit did not end with the death of the republic. Indeed, under the steady leadership of Roman emperors, the Roman Empire and its laws expanded across the Mediterranean. This system of law and order was known as the Pax Romana, or 'Roman Peace,' and it proved to be Rome's greatest export. Though the peoples and cities the Romans conquered likely resented Roman subjugation, they could not deny that their lives were far more peaceful and orderly than they had been before. Roman law was rather fair and balanced for its time, and it was enforced by the armies of a mighty empire. This became the trade Rome made with the people it conquered. They relinquished control of their government to Rome, and Rome, in exchange, provided them with justice and peace. This was a bargain most people could tolerate, and for 200 years, the Mediterranean fell under the sway of the Pax Romana. From 20 BCE to 180 CE, war within the empire was virtually unknown. In this era of peace, the provinces gradually became Romanized. Protected from invasion by the Roman army and secured in their property and persons by Roman law, the provinces were eager to gain the fruits of Roman civilization, like roads, running water, and culture. Cities strove to live up to this new Roman standard; gymnasia, theatres, schools, fountains, monuments, temples, and workshops sprung up all across the empire. Mos Maiorum Roman society was ruled by custom as much as by law. This was a very conservative society. The older a custom was, the more sacred the Romans held it. This network of customs was called the mos maiorum, or the custom of the ancestors. These customs governed everything from the individual family to society as a whole. At the family level, the mos maiorum established the pater familias, the father of the family, as the head of the household. The pater familias held absolute power over his household. However, he was supposed to exercise this power with moderation and justice. Failure to do so was deeply shameful. At the societal level, the mos maiorum referred to the system of patrons and clients that comprised Roman society. Patrons had obligations to their clients, and clients in turn had obligations to their patrons. These systems were hierarchical. One man's patron might be another man's client. This network of obligations formed a chain of responsibility, from the lowliest slave to the loftiest senator. Roman Virtues We can gain a clearer perspective on the mos maiorum by examining the virtues it extolled. The foremost Roman virtue was virtus. Though we derive the word 'virtue' from this word, in Latin, virtus meant manliness. By manliness, the Romans did not simply mean courage and strength, though those two concepts played an important role in Roman virtus. Virtus also implied the discernment to recognize good and evil and the wisdom to make informed decisions. Virtus encompassed several other sub-virtues governing a man's relationship to his fellow man, and society as a whole. Disciplina, from whence we derive the word 'discipline,' refers to each man's need for discipline, training and self-control. The importance of this virtue was key in the iron discipline of the Roman Army. Disciplina is closely related to gravitas, a sort of dignified self-control that was meant to protect oneself and one's family from shame and dishonor. Also closely related to disciplina is the virtue of constantia, which the source of our word 'constancy.' This virtue called on Romans to put on a brave face, even in the midst of terrible adversity. A virtuous Roman did not give up when he faced a challenge, nor did he let his enemies know when they had wounded him. The final Roman social virtue was fides, from which we gain the English word, 'fidelity.' Like its English derivative, fides means trustworthiness, faithfulness, reliability and credibility. In Rome, a man was only as good as his word. Fides provided the foundation of several important aspects of Roman society, from business contracts to the obligations of patrons and clients to one another. Considering the importance of religion in morality, it is not surprising that the mos maiorum also included several virtues concerning religion. There was religio, the source of our word 'religion.' Religio referred to the obligations between mortals and their gods, in much the same way that fides dealt with the obligations between patrons and clients. There was cultus, from whence we get the word 'cult.' Cultus governed the performance of religious traditions and rituals. But, the ultimate religious virtue was pietas, from whence we derive the word 'piety.' Pietas means that one lives one's whole life according to the will of the gods. It is the expansion of religious practice into everyday life. A Roman with the virtue of pietas did not leave his religious duties at the door of the temple, but carried them with him everywhere, following the will of the gods in his business transactions and everyday life. Pietas was the chief virtue of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, and was a virtue often ascribed to Octavian as he set about restoring the morality and religion of the Roman people. Finally, the Romans had virtues dealing with political service as well. A man who displayed all of these social and religious virtues could go far in the Roman state. The Roman virtue, dignitas, from whence we derive the word 'dignity,' means a reputation for honor and virtue. After all, there's no point in being virtuous if no-one knows how virtuous you are. Having achieved dignitas, a virtuous Roman would be granted auctoritas, the source of our word 'authority.' With auctoritas came the power to govern at various levels. This power granted prestige and respect in the Roman Republic. But, just like the auctoritas of the pater familias, this power came with the imperative to perform one's public duty with justice, wisdom and discernment. Stoicism As Greek philosophy found its way to Rome, the Romans struggled to find a philosophical framework for the mos maiorum. They found such a framework in the works of the stoics. Stoic philosophy originated in Greece around 300 BCE with the philosophy of Zeno of Citium. This school of philosophy focused on the supremacy of reason over emotion. Stoics denigrated emotions as fickle, shifting, destructive and misleading, while they praised reason as the one true path to happiness. Rather than having one's happiness depend on things that are subject to chance, like social status, wealth or love, the stoics thought true happiness depended on understanding the universe and one's place within it. According to the stoics, a man whose reason aligns with nature should never be unhappy, regardless of what life brings him. The stoics also emphasized the equality of all men, be they the lowliest slave or the loftiest emperor. They highlighted the fact that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or physical condition, had something to contribute to the whole, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower, which seem to work against each other, but actually work together for the good of the whole body. A person's importance was not determined by society, but by nature itself, which values the toil of the slave as much as the leadership of an emperor. This stoic philosophy aligned well with the mos maiorum of the Romans, especially the social virtues. Virtus implied a knowledge of natural law and a desire to act in accordance to it. Disciplina acknowledged that everyone had a place in society, and that society works best when everyone fulfills their role. Finally, constantia and gravitas both called for a similar strength of will and character, even in the face of outrageous misfortune. Roman Stoics Though stoicism had found its way to Rome as early as the 2nd century BCE, it was formally introduced to Rome by Cicero (106 - 43 BCE), a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher, who transmitted many of the greatest ideas of Greek philosophy to the Romans. In the centuries to follow, several great Roman thinkers came to embrace stoic philosophy. A generation after Cicero, the philosopher Seneca (4BC - 65 CE) wrote extensively on stoic philosophy. As an advisor to three Roman emperors, Seneca tried to impart stoic wisdom on his charges, though with little effect. From Seneca we get such gems as: 'To err is human.' 'All art is an imitation of nature.' 'Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.' 'The most onerous slavery is to be a slave to oneself.' 'To be always fortunate and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature.' 'To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind.' 'We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it.' While Seneca was trying in vain to teach morals to Caligula, another great stoic was captured in Greece. Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), a former slave, wrote a great number of discourses, full of pithy phrases, which his student, Arrian, compiled into the famous Encheirideon. In Epictetus, we see a great deal of writing about reason overcoming adversity, doubtlessly inspired by Epictetus' own life as a former slave. He wrote: 'Difficulties are things that show what men are.' 'Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are the body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.' In Epictetus' writings, we can even see the beginnings of Christian morality, such as in his early version of the Golden Rule: 'What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery, beware of enslaving others!' Roman stoicism reached its apex in the meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE). Epictetus has provided a slave's perspective on stoicism. Marcus Aurelius came at this school of thought from the exact opposite end of the social ladder. As an emperor, Marcus Aurelius had everything he could want from life. He did not need the comfort of stoicism to help him get through life's disappointments. It is stunning, therefore, to witness the humility of this great emperor, his recognition of the value of his fellow man and his recognition of the role of good fortune in his own rise to power. These can all be seen clearly in what has come to be known as the credo of Marcus Aurelius: 'When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own, not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.'